Opioid overdose deaths remain high in the U.S. Despite having effective interventions to prevent overdose deaths, there are numerous barriers that impede their adoption. The primary aim of the HEALing Communities Study (HCS) is to determine the impact of an intervention consisting of community-engaged, data-driven selection, and implementation of an integrated set of evidence-based practices (EBPs) on reducing opioid overdose deaths. The HCS is a four year multi-site, parallel-group, cluster randomized wait-list controlled trial. Communities (n = 67) in Kentucky, Massachusetts, New York and Ohio are randomized to active intervention (Wave 1), which starts the intervention in Year 1 or the wait-list control (Wave 2), which starts the intervention in Year 3. The HCS will test a conceptually driven framework to assist communities in selecting and adopting EBPs with three components: 1) A community engagement strategy with local coalitions to guide and implement the intervention; 2) A compendium of EBPs coupled with technical assistance; and 3) A series of communication campaigns to increase awareness and demand for EBPs and reduce stigma. An implementation science framework guides the intervention and allows for examination of the multilevel contexts that promote or impede adoption and expansion of EBPs. The primary outcome, number of opioid overdose deaths, will be compared between Wave 1 and Wave 2 communities during Year 2 of the intervention for Wave 1. Numerous secondary outcomes will be examined. The HCS is the largest community-based implementation study in the field of addiction with an ambitious goal of significantly reducing fatal opioid overdoses.

Objective To examine doctors' perspectives about their experiences with handheld computers in clinical practice. Design Qualitative study of eight focus groups consisting of doctors with diverse training and practice patterns. Setting Six practice settings across the United States and two additional focus group sessions held at a national meeting of general internists. Participants 54 doctors who did or did not use handheld computers. Results Doctors who used handheld computers in clinical practice seemed generally satisfied with them and reported diverse patterns of use. Users perceived that the devices helped them increase productivity and improve patient care. Barriers to use concerned the device itself and personal and perceptual constraints, with perceptual factors such as comfort with technology, preference for paper, and the impression that the devices are not easy to use somewhat difficult to overcome. Participants suggested that organisations can help promote handheld computers by providing advice on purchase, usage, training, and user support. Participants expressed concern about reliability and security of the device but were particularly concerned about dependency on the device and over-reliance as a substitute for clinical thinking. Conclusions Doctors expect handheld computers to become more useful, and most seem interested in leveraging (getting the most value from) their use. Key opportunities with handheld computers included their use as a stepping stone to build doctors' comfort with other information technology and ehealth initiatives and providing point of care support that helps improve patient care.

People use a variety of means to find health information, including searching the Internet, seeking print sources, and talking to healthcare providers, family members, and friends. Doctors are considered the most trusted source of health information, but people may be underutilizing them in favor of searching the Internet. A multinomial logistic regression of cross-sectional data from Cycle 4 of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) was conducted. Independent variables included gender, age, rurality, cancer history, general health, income, race, education level, insurance status, veteran status, Internet use, and data year; the dependent variable was the first chosen source of health information. The most frequent initial source of health information was the Internet, and the second most frequent was healthcare providers. There were significant differences in odds of using healthcare providers as the first source of health information. Those likely to use doctors as their initial source of health information were older adults, black adults, adults with health insurance, those who do not use the Internet, and adults who do not have a college degree. People who use healthcare providers as the first source of health information may have better access to health care and be those less likely to use the Internet. Doctors may have to provide more information to those who do not use the internet and spend time verifying information for those who do use health information from the internet.

Clinical informatics, decision support for health professionals, electronic health records, and ehealth infrastructures.

While cancer rates have decreased consistently over the last several years, not all populations have realized similar declines.¹ As more investigations have begun to focus on the rural United States, data are accumulating that suggest a much greater cancer burden in this population. While rural regions experience similar incidence of most cancers compared with urban areas, some cancers that can be prevented with regular screenings, such as cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer, have a higher prevalence in rural areas.² Additionally, overall death rates due to cancer are higher in rural areas compared with urban areas.² Rural is defined in many ways; however, by applying the Rural Urban Continuum Code (RUCC) definition,³ as accepted by the National Cancer Institute (NCI),⁴ 72% of the US land mass and 15% of the population, totaling 46.2 million US residents, are categorized as rural.⁵ Rural areas vary across the United States and include Appalachia, frontier lands, the Mississippi Delta, and prairie lands, among others.